Two of the defining characteristics of lese majeste under the military dictatorship have been the use of secret/in-camera trials and the use of delays to force defendants to plead guilty, meaning that there is no trial, just a sentencing.

We have seen both in the most recent case involving anti-coup activist Jatuphat Boonpattaraksa.

According to his lawyer, cited at Prachatai, the young Pai “chose to plead guilty because he was being tried in camera, meaning observers and media were not allowed into the courtroom.” In jail for almost 8 months,the lawyer stated that “Jatuphat initially intended to have people witness injustices in the Thai judicial system, but his goal could not be met if the court chose to hold his trial in secret.”

We are sure that this is something the military dictatorship knows and that’s why they hold secret faux trials in the (in)justice system.

Another motivation for Pai’s confession cited in the report is that “Jatuphat and his family was also informed by the court that he does not stand much chance to win the case as the king was protected by the constitution although he was accused of lèse majesté for merely sharing a BBC biography of King Vajiralongkorn.”

That makes little sense to us, for no-one accused of lese majeste has much chance of winning a case.

Amnesty International is cited on the sentencing:

This verdict shows the extremes to which the authorities are prepared to go in using repressive laws to silence peaceful debate, including on Facebook. It is outrageous that Pai Dao Din is now facing more than two years behind bars just for sharing a news article….

That’s entirely true.

We must also remember the cases of others when we think of injustice. Here are two of many:

Somyos Pruksakasemsuk, a journalist and labor activist, was arrested on 30 April 2011, and he remains in jail. When he was on trial, he was usually kept in chains and cages. On 23 January 2013, Somyos was sentenced to 5 years on each of two lese majeste charges, with an extra year added from a previous suspended sentence for insulting General Saprang Kalayanamit, a leader of the 2006 royalist coup. He refused to plead guilty and is serving his time.

Burin Intin, a welder and an anti-coup political activist, was arrested about 27 April 2016. He was taken from the police by soldiers and detained at a military base before the military court eventually sentenced him on 27 January 2017. Having been held for almost nine months, Burin changed his plea to guilty on lese majeste and computer crimes charges. Burin got 11 years and 4 months in jail on two lese majeste charges.

Somyos was arrested at 12 noon on Saturday, 30 April 2011.He was accused of lese majeste and eventually convicted, not for anything he wrote, but as the editor of Voice of Taksin, which was said to have published material deemed to constitute lese majeste.

Essentially, the royalists wanted a “message” sent to opponents by persecuting Somyos.

Unlike almost all other lese majeste prisoners, Somyos bravely stood up to the threats, unconstitutional pressure and dragged out court procedures and dragged him around the country in a form of torture. He refused to plead guilty and the royalist courts and prosecutors persecuted him.

He was repeatedly refused bail.

Today, the long-time labor activist was sentenced to six years in jail by the Supreme Court for lese majeste and another year for defaming a military general, the latter, Saprang Kalayanamitr, being a royalist tool involved in planning the 2006 coup.

That seems to be his last legal avenue to prove his innocence. Given the time spent in jail, the junta should release him now.

We repeat our call for the immediate release of prominent Thai labour activist and magazine editor Mr. Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, who is serving a jail sentence for violating the lese-majeste law. The Supreme Court of Thailand ruled today to reduce his jail sentence from 10 to 6 years.

“While the decision is a step towards Somyot’s early release, we remain concerned by the extremely harsh sentence” said Laurent Meillan, Acting Regional Representative of the South East Asia Regional Office.

The Supreme Court reduced Somyot’s prison sentence on the grounds of old age and the fact that he has been in jail since 2011.

In 2013, the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed deep concern about the extremely harsh sentencing of Somyot and stated that the conviction sent a wrong signal about freedom of expression in Thailand. The UN Human Rights Mechanisms have repeatedly urged the Thai Government to stop using lese-majeste provisions as a political tool to stifle critical speech and have repeatedly stated that that harsh criminal sanctions under the law are neither necessary nor proportionate.

In August 2012, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Somyot’s detention was arbitrary and requested the Government of Thailand to take all necessary steps to “release Somyot and accord him an enforceable right to compensation” in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We urge the Thai Government to implement the decision of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on Somyot’s case.

At 12 noon on Saturday, 30 April 2011, Somyos Pruksakasemsuk was arrested in Aranyaprathet province. He was arrested on allegations of violating Article 112, the lese majeste law.

Kept in jail until his trial, often in chains and cages when he made court appearances, on 23 January 2013, Somyos was sentenced to 5 years on each of two lese majeste charges, with an extra year added from a previous suspended sentence for insulting General Saprang Kalayanamit, a leader of the 2006 royalist coup and an activist on lese majeste.

The story of Somyos, his long-running trial and the inglorious sentencing he received is testament to the political nature of Article 112.

As PPT has said for almost five years, Somyos should be released. In fact, all political prisoners should be released.

It is unlikely to happen under the royalist-backed military dictatorship, but that should not prevent people from demanding it and showing the barbarity of the lese majeste law to the world.

… already has the name of the person it intends to nominate as interim prime minister, and has also drawn up the proposed membership of a “people’s council”.

…”Now we have someone [a candidate to be the next PM] who is sincere and not corrupt. [If] we cannot find someone who is [totally] innocent [in life], we can choose the most innocent…”.

It says it will “announce the names to the public immediately if Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and her Cabinet resign from their caretaking duties…”. This would be the next element of what these extreme anti-democrats call a “revolution.”

According to the protest leaders:

… the structure of a people’s council would comprise groups representing different professions, civil society, government officers and the media, with the qualification that they have not been prosecuted for corruption or seizure of property, among things.

They plan to “fix” the constitution:

“We had learned from the lessons of the National Legislative Assembly and Constitution Drafting Committee. And we would prevent the people’s council from making the same mistakes as them…”.

In the lead-up to the 2008 court-ordered dissolution of Thaksin’s brother-in-law Somchai Wongsawat’s government, a People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protest leader suggested that the Constitutional Court and other high court judges had considered the creation of a “Supreme Council” to fill the expected political vacuum to be left by its ruling. Then, royal advisory Privy Councilor and known palace favorite Palakorn Suwanarat was reportedly tipped to serve as the Supreme Council’s appointed premier.

… According to one international mediator, the NACC has [now] fast-tracked its investigations and could rule in the coming days. Some royalists reckon that could open a political and legal vacuum that allows for the formation through court order of a royalist People’s Council. Behind-the-scenes moves are being made in that direction. One list of proposed People’s Council members reviewed by Asia Times Online bids to balance known royalists with once-Thaksin allies who switched political sides after the 2006 coup.

This is PPT’s third post on recently released Wikileaks cables that comment on Human Rights Watch, lese majeste and the 2006 coup. The first post is here and the second is here.

In this post we begin with a 5 January 2007 cable, where Ambassador Ralph Boyce indicates what he seems to have seen as an exceptionally close relationship with HRW’s Sunai Phasuk.

At the time there had been a spate of bombings in Bangkok on New Year’s eve in 2006. There were many rumors, including worries about another coup. The cable says:

rumors were rife that Council for National Security (CNS) member General Saprang Kalayanamitr was behind the movements, due to his dissatisfaction with the current regime’s “softness” against those seeking to undermine the interim government (e.g., former Thai Rak Thai officials).

Saprang denied everything but the Embassy saw a conflict between the royalist Saprang and former prime minister General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh who was identified as pro-Thaksin Shinawatra.

This is where HRW’s Sunai comes in, pointing his finger at Chavalit as the one responsible for the bomb blasts:

Sunai firmly believes that political actors — most likely with ties to former PM Chavalit Yongchaiyudh — were behind the bombings. According to Sunai, the bomb attacks were designed to discredit the government and to distract the public from the ongoing corruption investigations of former Prime Minister Thaksin and his supporters.

With no evidence presented, this accusation is one that matched a claim made by yellow shirt support and 2006 coup plotter General Saprang.

Sunai went on to say that he “personally believes that the government and CNS are ‘good people’ but are increasingly ineffective.” Again, that is a comment that Saprang would have appreciated.

No one has ever claimed responsibility for the bombings and no one has ever been charged. What isn’t clear is why HRW should be informally finger pointing at Chavalit, effectively repeating stories circulated by yellow shirts like Saprang who have a record of plots (such as the 2006 coup).

Again, readers can draw conclusions on relationships, accusations and apparent political bias.

The latest release of cables from Wikileaks has a remarkable piece of “advice” from then U.S. Ambassador Ralph Boyce on how to deal with lese majeste charges against a U.S. citizen, based on a Swiss experience. The “Swiss experience” relates to the case of Oliver Jufer and embassies in Bangkok, Amnesty International and those who speak for them on blogs, tend to argue that quiet diplomacy and “working quietly behind the scenes” carries the day when dealing with lese majeste.

In Head’s report, there is this: “We had heard he was indignant when first arrested. He had planned to plead not guilty. But he has clearly been advised since, perhaps by his lawyer, or the Swiss Embassy, to change his tune.” He had already spent 3 months in prison awaiting trial. Several of the reports note the politicization of lese majeste by the military junta that came to power through the royalist coup of 2006. This is one example:

After Jufer was arrested, Gen Saprang Kanlayanamitr, deputy secretary-general of the Council for National Security, as the junta styles itself, said: “The suspect must have been hired by someone so I have ordered soldiers to investigate the incident and bring the mastermind of this crime to justice.” Nonetheless, Thai media have barely covered the case after police urged local journalists not to report it.

That statement by Saprang is reflective of the idiocy surrounding Thaksin Shinawatra and lese majeste following the coup, with Saprang suggesting that Jufer was put up to the act by the regime’s political opponents.

Jufer was sentenced to 20 years, reduced to 10 year because he was persuaded to change his plea to guilty. That guilty plea meant that no evidence was heard in the court.

Boyce

U.S. Ambassador Boyce, who has shown himself pro-coup and pro-junta in other cables, offers advice to the State Department. His cable begins with a reference to the “recent arrest and subsequent pardon of a Swiss national accused of offending Thailand’s revered King Bhumipol Adulyadej…”. It is as if this is all that matters. Jufer was arrested somewhere around 6 December 2006 and wasn’t pardoned and deported until 12 April 2007, meaning that he spent more than 4 months in prison for a drunken defacing of a few of the thousands of monarchy propaganda posters that are required around the time of the king’s birthday and that often stay up all year these days.

Boyce goes into the usual royalist spin about the monarch being revered and wielding “great moral authority” as if Boyce hadn’t been following the events of the past years and sending cables supportive of the palace’s politics during that time.

He then claims that this case “provided a rare window into the reaction of the palace to incidents of lese majeste” and adds that:

Swiss officials in Thailand believe their restrained response to the arrest, in spite of their public’s demand for strong action, contributed to the sooner-than-expected release of their citizen.

Boyce states that Jufer was:

sentenced to ten years imprisonment [PPT: in fact, it was 20 years, reduced for pleading guilty] after being convicted on lese majeste charges.” He “spraying black paint over five outdoor posters of King Bhumipol Adulyadej on December 5, 2006 (the King’s birthday) in the northern city of Chiang Mai. Jufer admitted to being drunk at the time and was reportedly angry that new laws limiting the times when alcohol can be sold prevented him from buying beer.

Boyce then makes some outlandish claims:

Sentences for lese majeste are typically hortatory in nature and offenders are normally pardoned by the king. Nevertheless, as evidenced by the recent ban of the popular web site YouTube (see reftel), the overwhelming popularity of the Thai sovereign compels the authorities to act should someone publicly slight the King or his family.

All that he state here is nonsense and it is clear that Boyce is making a series of royalist claims that are close to his heart. First, it is the law that is “hortatory,” not the sentences. Indeed, as several of the newspaper accounts cited above make very clear, there was precious little media coverage in Thailand and attempts to limit international coverage. It is the law itself that demands self-censorship and the repression of views that are not the same as those of royalists. Second, the claim that the king is so widely adored that any “slight” against the king demands that the government acts puts him in la-la land. Boyce diverts attention from what PPT calls lese majeste repression and ignores long suppressed anti-monarchy sentiments that were widespread following the coup.

According to Swiss Embassy Minister Jacques Lauer, who helped coordinate the Swiss response to Jufer’s arrest, the Swiss government was surprised by how rapidly the King pardoned Jufer — a mere 13 days following his conviction and before Jufer had even filed an appeal or requested a royal pardon. Lauer indicated they had expected the King would follow tradition and wait until his 80th birthday, eight months later, to pardon Jufer and others accused of lese majeste. Lauer noted that Thai prison officials provided Swiss consular officials full access to Jufer.

PPT is unsure of the notion of “tradition” in sentencing and pardoning. A previous know case cited at Wikipedia says this:

Frenchman Lech Tomasz Kisielewicz allegedly committed lèse majesté in 1995 by making a derogatory remark about a Thai princess while on board a Thai Airways flight. Although in international airspace at the time, he was taken into custody upon landing in Bangkok and charged with offending the monarchy. He was detained for two weeks, released on bail, and acquitted after writing a letter of apology to the king, and deported.

It would seem that the “tradition” was not a tradition and depended on circumstances and whim. Kisielewicz was a relatively wealthy businessman with international connections and had refused to obey the instructions of an airline hostess who demanded he turn off his reading light that was said to have “inconvenienced” Princess Soamsawali, sitting in front of him. He was said to uttered derogatory remarks. In fact, Soamsawali is not covered by Article 112 but this case shows the illegality involved in the use of the law.

With no detail, background or previous experience cited, Boyce believes the Swiss got it right:

Minister Lauer credited Jufer’s speedy pardon to a Swiss decision to not antagonize Thai officials by making public comments, an action that may have provoked a backlash due to the public adoration of the King. Lauer claimed that intense international media attention and the public clamor in Switzerland for Jufer’s release made it difficult to balance the need to avoid offending their Thai interlocutors while appearing proactive in the eyes of the Swiss public. While historically relatively few foreigners have been accused of lese majeste, Lauer cautioned that should an AmCit be detained for lese majeste charges, any public criticism or appeals by USG officials would be tantamount to “throwing oil on the fire”.

There’s no evidence for this claim except the feeling espoused by an official who was criticized for his lack of action on the Jufer case. There is no contrary evidence because no embassy has been willing to take a public stand and criticize the Thai law and its use. Backbone has been lacking and still is. In addition, the U.S. relationship with Thailand is quite different from that between Switzerland and Thailand. Boyce concludes:

If an AmCit were to be charged with lese majeste, it is likely that a low key approach outside the public eye would stand the best chance of success in getting him or her out of custody and out of Thailand.

That seems to be the current line taken by the Embassy and State Department in dealing with the truly testing case of Joe Gordon, charged with offenses allegedly committed on U.S. soil.

Nicolaides

It might be noted that another embassy that seems to have followed the “don’t rock the boat” strategy is the Australian Embassy during the imprisonment of Australian citizen Harry Nicolaides. In this case, the Harry’s family complained about the Australian government’s approach and his lawyer became outspoken. As pointed out in our page on Nicolaides, while he mouthed appreciation for the efforts of governments, he seemed more concerned to thank the media and people in Australia for keeping the pressure on and support up. The Australian government appears to have believed that a guilty plea and conviction would result in a quick pardon and deportation. It took a month, meaning that Harry was in jail from 2 September 2008 to 20 February 2009. His return to Australia is chronicled here.

In his concluding comment, Boyce writes about the “King’s preexisting public statement that he will pardon anyone convicted of lese majeste…”. Of course, it is not as simple as Boyce’s propaganda-like statement makes out. If a guilty plea isn’t entered, getting a pardon seems not to be in the equation, unless it is a part of general sentence reductions and releases associated with the king’s birthday.

Boyce then really gets out on a thin limb by claiming that the “sooner-than-expected release of Jufer seem to indicate that the palace is uncomfortable with the strict application of lese majeste laws.” He adds that:

palace officials seem reluctant to let lese majeste be used as a tool to punish those who are accused of defaming the monarch. The palace appears quite sensitive to the possibility that lese majeste could be abused by non-palace actors to achieve their own ends.

The Wikileaks cables suggest that, by this point in his career as U.S. Ambassador, Boyce was doing little more than cheering for junta and monarchy. If his partisan advice now drives U.S. policy on lese majeste, then U.S. citizens can expect little support if they are caught up with draconian lese majeste repression.

Prachatai reports that on 8 July 2011, Darunee Charnchoensilpakul, who was sentenced to 18 years in jail on lese majeste charges on 28 August 2009, has seen her conviction and 50,000 baht fine “for insulting privy councillors and generals behind the 2006 coup” upheld.

It is claimed that in her speech during a protest rally on 31 May 2007 Darunee “attacked Chair of the Privy Council Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, then-Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and leaders of the 2006 coup Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin and Gen Saprang Kalayanamit, blaming them for the coup and the damage it had caused the country.”

The fact that Darunee was correct in her analysis and that these coup planners and implementers broke several laws and overthrew the constitution in implementing an illegal coup seems not to matter.

Prachatai reports that the military junta, known as the Council for National Security, “assigned the Judge Advocate General’s Department to lodge a defamation complaint against her in June 2007.”

Darunee is being punished again and again for her refusal to plead guilty on lese majeste charges. It is, in fact, these scheming men – Prem, Sonthi, Surayud, Saprang – who should be in jail for their illegal acts that have led to such turmoil.